The Scottish Government has laid a substantial rewrite of the rules governing misconduct cases involving Police Scotland senior officers. The Police Service of Scotland (Senior Officers) (Conduct) Amendment Regulations 2026 were made on 29 September 2026, laid before the Scottish Parliament on 1 October 2026 and come into force on 26 November 2026. According to the explanatory note to SSI 2026/277, the changes do more than update procedure. They move the system away from Scottish Police Authority-led screening and investigation, give the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner a larger statutory role, create a new accelerated route for the most serious cases and set clearer rules on openness, redaction and appeals.
From 26 November 2026, every misconduct allegation concerning a senior officer that reaches the Scottish Police Authority or the chief constable must be passed to the Commissioner without delay. The Commissioner must then decide, as soon as reasonably practicable, whether the alleged conduct would amount to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither. That assessment now drives the rest of the process. If the conduct would amount to neither, the case goes back to the Authority, which may take no action, take improvement action or refer the matter into the senior officers' performance regime. If the conduct would amount to misconduct, the Commissioner decides whether an investigation is warranted. If it would amount to gross misconduct, an investigation becomes mandatory. The previous preliminary assessment and investigatory functions of the Authority are removed.
The instrument also widens the reach of the senior officers' conduct code. Conduct occurring on or after 26 November 2026 can fall under the senior officer regime where a constable below assistant chief constable rank is later promoted, whether permanently or temporarily, or where the officer was temporarily acting as a senior officer at the time. The revised definition is designed to stop cases falling between rank-based procedures. SSI 2026/277 also rewrites several key definitions. Misconduct allegations are framed broadly enough to cover formal or informal information from which misconduct can reasonably be inferred. New terms include accelerated misconduct hearing, misconduct pre-hearing, special conditions, informant and trauma-informed practice. The regulations also create a statutory joint investigation model where the same facts concern a senior officer and another constable under the 2014 conduct rules, but they preserve separate decision-making, prohibit a single joint report and bar joint interviews of the constable and the senior officer.
Another notable change is the redistribution of roles between institutions. The Commissioner may now recommend suspension to the Authority in writing, with reasons, where non-suspension may prejudice a misconduct or criminal investigation. Before suspending, the Authority must consider temporary redeployment to alternative duties or an alternative location and decide whether that would be sufficient in the circumstances. The test for suspension is also redrawn. Suspension may be justified where an effective criminal or misconduct investigation may be prejudiced, or where the nature of the allegation and other relevant considerations mean the public interest requires it. At the same time, representation rights are extended to misconduct pre-hearings and accelerated misconduct hearings, but with a clear limit: neither a police representative nor a legal representative may answer questions on the senior officer's behalf.
The hearing structure is recast on more tribunal-style lines. Ordinary misconduct hearings must now be heard by a three-person panel chaired by a legal member of the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland, appointed by the Lord President. The Scottish Police Authority appoints the other two members: one senior expert in policing and one independent lay member. The regulations bar appointments where impartiality could reasonably be questioned and require conflicts of interest to be declared. Case management is tightened. The chairing member must take steps to ensure proceedings are fair, transparent and timely, and should keep the first day of the hearing within 100 working days of the misconduct form being treated as served unless the interests of justice point the other way. A private pre-hearing can be held to settle witness lists, disclosure, legal arguments, publication questions and other preliminary matters. The Commissioner, rather than the Authority, now presents the case at the hearing.
The transparency rules are also stronger, although not absolute. Misconduct hearings are to be held in public unless the chair decides that exclusion, attendance conditions or reporting restrictions are needed. The chair may require the Authority to publish notice of a hearing on its website, including the senior officer's name, the date, time and place of the hearing, and a description of the conduct alleged. The regulations build in a wider set of participation rights around that decision. The senior officer, the Commissioner, relevant complainants and witnesses may make written representations on openness and publication. Where a case ends with no case to answer, the Commissioner must notify the complainant of that outcome and the reasons for it, subject to limits linked to criminal proceedings, crime prevention, witness safety, personal data and the public interest. Separate provisions let the chair support witnesses through live links, screens, private evidence or the presence of a supporter where fairness is not undermined.
The most significant procedural innovation is a new accelerated misconduct hearing for cases said to require swift action. The Commissioner may certify a case for that route where there is sufficient documentary evidence to establish gross misconduct on the balance of probabilities and where it is in the public interest for the senior officer to cease to hold office without delay. If an investigator reaches that view before the investigation is complete, an early report must be sent up so that the Commissioner can decide whether to certify the case. The timetable is compressed. Once notice is given, the accelerated hearing must usually be fixed for between 10 and 15 working days later. The panel is constituted in the same way as an ordinary misconduct panel, and the hearing is public by default. The senior officer must state whether gross misconduct is accepted and can lodge mitigation, factual disputes, legal arguments and supporting documents. If gross misconduct is proved, the panel may impose a final written warning, dismissal with notice or dismissal without notice. If it is not proved, the panel may dismiss the case or send it back into the ordinary hearing process.
The sanctions and appeal rules are updated alongside the hearing process. Verbal warnings are removed. A written warning will last 18 months, while a final written warning will last two years and may later be extended to as much as five years. Appeals against disciplinary action imposed after either an ordinary or accelerated hearing lie to the First-tier Tribunal, with the decision treated as made on the date the outcome report is sent to the senior officer. Publication rules are more detailed than before. The chair may produce different versions of the outcome report for the Authority, the senior officer, the complainant and the public, with withholding, redaction or anonymisation tested against criminal justice, misconduct prevention, witness protection, personal data and wider public interest grounds. Where publication is required, the Authority must place the report on its website for 28 days. In practice, the Commissioner becomes the entry point and case presenter for senior officer conduct cases, while the Authority retains a narrower but still material role in suspension decisions, panel appointments, publication and follow-on action. Transitional provisions preserve the old regime for existing cases and for conduct occurring before 26 November 2026.